In traditional American thought, the government
plays a limited role, confining itself to activities such as military
defense and the punishment of crimes such as theft and murder. Popular
mythology holds this to be a key principle embraced by the Republican
Party since freedom dictates that the individual be allowed to pursue
their interests unimpeded within the boundaries of reason and natural
law. One would think such rights extended to the simple things of life
like what we eat as well.

Over the years, one has come to expect the abridgement
of these fundamental liberties from the likes of Democrats and Liberals
since it is in their nature to assume they know how to run our lives better
than we do. One is less accustomed when it is Republicans and so-called
Conservatives issuing such autocratic pronouncements.

It is normally assumed that, apart from perhaps
overseeing the overall public safety of the food supply against disease,
the government should avoid interfering in the free expression of culinary
preferences. However, one prominent member of the Bush Administration
possesses a considerably different conception regarding the operation
of the gastronomical economy.

Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson
addressed a gathering of fast food executives, chastising them for not
offering healthier foods such as fruits and vegetables and for daring
to offer super-size specials. Thompson is reported in the Washington Post
as saying, "I want more choices and healthier choices on their menus,
and advertising campaigns to eat healthy. We are too fat and donít exercise."

Politicians are renowned for being notoriously out
of touch with reality. Remember the first President Bushís befuddlement
upon seeing his first bar-code scanner in a supermarket way back in 1991?

No one goes to MacDonaldís for a healthy snack or
to imbibe those forms of nourishment that will win them favor with the
government. If people really have a hankering to eat as they are told,
they can always bypass the fast food establishments in pursuit of the
of the more nutritional offerings available from more reputable victuallers.
After all, often shopping establishments have these eateries and grocery
stores accessible by the same parking lot. If someone really wants to
make a scene out of getting their fiber, why donít they just drive out
to the countryside and tussle in a meadow with a sheep or goat for some
straw or hay?

Just as disturbing is Thompsonís conclusion that
Americans have grown "too fat" and for these franchises to "rethink their
supersize portions". In other words, it ought to be the governmentís role
to tell us what to eat and how much. The last time I checked, Thompson
doesnít look like heís missed too many meals.

Before too long, weíll probably be told itís our
patriotic duty to lose weight in the name of the war on terror; after
all, other things not even remotely related to this national security
concern have been reined in under this umbrella. Contrary to what FreedomCorps
propagandists would tell us, not that many terrorists are suffering from
a bout of illiteracy.

If Secretary Thompson is so concerned about overindulgence,
perhaps he could spend time lecturing the Kennedyís about their propensity
towards alcohol or rebuke the various Bush offspring regarding their cravings
for intoxicating substances instead of harassing the American people about
the innocent pleasures of a Big Mac and fries. Most of the time, overeaters
arenít known for driving cars off of bridges or forging phony prescriptions.

These concerns are more than mere conspiracy mongering.
CNSNews.com reported that the World Health Organization in the World Health
Report 2002 is urging governments around the globe to enact legislation
regulating the consumption of fats, sugars, and salt.

Some think they will continue to eat what they want
regardless of these pompous policy proclamations. They might be in for
a bit of surprise.

Drawing much of their inspiration from the anti-smoking
pogrom, these food fascists plan to impose a number of measures on what
people eat similar to the increased taxes currently levied against tobacco
products. But with expanding technology, excessive taxation might be the
least of the snacking populationís concerns.

Over the past decade or so, the grocery-going public
has grown accustomed to so-called customer loyalty cards that allow supermarkets
to collect purchasing information on participants in exchange for discounts,
sales, and coupons. Sounds innocuous as a means of clarifying the variables
of the economic relationship between supplier and customer, but that all
depends in whose hands this information ends up.

For example, a story posted on the Fox News website
back in August revealed that one grocery chain eagerly handed its customer
database over to the government after the September 11th attack. Somehow
I donít think Muhammad Atta was all that concerned with pork rebates or
discounts on shell fish, and even if he was, it ought not be of concern
to the government.

Thus, since the government seeks to exercise yet
another layer of control over the lives of the American people as suggested
by Secretary Thompsonís comments, this kind of technology could be adapted
to a program of unprecedented dietary surveillance. For example, a Bureau
of Nutritional Enforcement could compel access to all existing preferred
shopper accounts or even require anyone wanting to acquire provisions
to obtain one of these cards.

Since such information would be electronically catalogued,
it would be a simple matter of imposing a fine or inflicting a punishment
upon any soul brash enough to ingest nourishment transcending the limits
of federally mandated parameters. Overeaters could be denied insurance,
desirable employment, or even the right to purchase additional rations
of their choice.

A popular pro-abortion bumper-sticker sneers, "My
body, my choice." If the Bush Administration is only going to mount a
hear-hearted effort at curbing this contemporary holocaust, they certainly
do not possess the moral clout to condemn the individual for simply enjoying
provisions that bring little harm to those consuming them and none whatsoever
to those choosing not to partake of them.

Frederick
Meekins is a student in the distance education program of Trinity
Theological Seminiary pursuing an MA in Apologetics and Philosophy.
He has published commentaries on websites such as WorthyNews.Com,
The Freedom of Religion Coalition of Maryland, and the Christian
Portal Homepage and in newspapers such as the Prince George's Journal.